[Hostage]

> “SCOTUS rejected its original jurisdiction when it refused to hear the Texas v. Pennsylvania case.”

This would be a new case for original jurisdiction. It may be that quo warranto could only be brought AFTER inauguration.

The 9th Circuit held the proper venue for quo warranto was as you wrote, DC District Court, but that would seem for individual plaintiffs.

I believe States always have original jurisdiction versus the United States. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[Dr. Franklin]

This would be a new case for original jurisdiction. It may be that quo warranto could only be brought AFTER inauguration.
The 9th Circuit held the proper venue for quo warranto was as you wrote, DC District Court, but that would seem for individual plaintiffs.

Yes, it would be unprecedented. SCOTUS guards its docket very well, and prefers not to hear cases through its original jurisdiction, and when it must it will appoint a special master to take the testimony for it. It prefers to hear things on appeal.

I believe States always have original jurisdiction versus the United States. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

The problem is that this is not a suit against the United States. I certainly think that the allegation that POTUS was illegitimately certified affects "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls". In fact, POTUS is a "consul" in the classic meaning of the word, i.e., the leader of a republic. (Napoleon had the title of Consul of France.) The other argument is that a writ of quo warranto is included in the all writs act when a state is a party. Since its all unprecedented, SCOTUS needs to want to hear the case to get a favorable ruling. I tho